Supreme Court to decide this week whether to rule on gay marriage

posted at 7:46 pm on November 26, 2012 by Allahpundit

Belated good news for those of you who were disappointed in gay marriage’s victories at the polls on election day: Those victories may have inadvertently saved the prohibitions on gay marriage in other states.

Usually, the justices are inclined to vote to hear a case if they disagree with the lower court ruling. The most conservative justices — Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — almost certainly think the 9th Circuit’s ruling was dubious. Scalia, for example, says the “equal protection” clause, added to the Constitution after the Civil War, aimed to stop racial discrimination and nothing more. He often insists the justices are not authorized to give a contemporary interpretation to phrases such as “equal protection.”

If Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joins the other three, the conservatives would have the needed four votes to hear the Proposition 8 case.

They may hesitate. To form a majority, they would need Kennedy, the author of the court’s two strongest gay rights rulings. His 2003 opinion struck down a Texas anti-sodomy law and said the state could not “demean” gays by treating them as second-class citizens. Five months later, the Massachusetts high court, citing Kennedy’s opinion, became the first to rule that gays and lesbians had a right to marry.

There are actually a bunch of cases they could vote to take up, from Prop 8 to various DOMA challenges. Kennedy has written not one but two landmark opinions on gay rights so it’s highly likely that he’ll vote with the Court’s liberals to form a majority if/when those issues finally land before them. In other words, how the Court will eventually rule is less of a mystery than whether they’ll choose to intervene in this subject at all; Friday’s vote on whether to grant cert and accept the cases is therefore momentous.

But wait. If you only need four votes to grant cert and if Kennedy’s opinion that the Equal Protection Clause protects gay marriage is all but assured, then why don’t the four liberals on the Court force the issue by voting to take the Prop 8 case? Answer: For the moment, it’s bad strategy. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, February 2012:

At the time of Roe v. Wade, abortion was legal on request in four states, allowed under limited circumstances in about 16 others, and outlawed under nearly all circumstances in the other states, including Texas – where the Roe case originated.

Alluding to the persisting bitter debate over abortion, Ginsburg said the justices of that era could have delayed hearing any case like Roe while the state-by-state process evolved. Alternatively, she said, they could have struck down just the Texas law, which allowed abortions only to save a mother’s life, without declaring a right to privacy that legalized the procedure nationwide.

“The court made a decision that made every abortion law in the country invalid, even the most liberal,” Ginsburg said. “We’ll never know whether I’m right or wrong … things might have turned out differently if the court had been more restrained.”

“It’s not that the judgment was wrong,” she said of Roe, “but it moved too far too fast.” Same logic here: If there’s momentum for your side of the issue at the polls, why risk igniting a backlash by taking it out of voters’ hands? The best thing gay-rights advocates can do to build popular acceptance of SSM is let it accrue democratic legitimacy. Some, in fact, have been warning Ted Olson and David Boies to knock it off with the court challenges for years in the interest of not judicially short-circuiting the process of public acceptance. If Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington had voted differently three weeks ago, those same advocates might have given up hope of winning at the polls and resigned themselves to court battles. Now, though, they know they can win — in some states. And the gay-rights supporters on the Court know it too. So maybe on Friday the conservative wing votes not to take the Prop 8 case because they suspect Kennedy will vote against them and maybe the liberal wing votes not to take the case because, following Ginsburg’s logic, they don’t want to taint SSM as something that was imposed by judicial fiat.

Two potential problems, though. First, the Ninth Circuit, which includes Idaho and Montana, has already ruled against Prop 8 and in favor of gay marriage, which means we’re already seeing federal appellate courts hand down pro-SSM rulings to districts that presumably trend anti. It’s true that the Ninth Circuit’s decision was written narrowly, restricted to California presumably in hopes that that would leave the Supreme Court more inclined not to overturn it, but a federal district court in the Circuit’s redder states might end up applying the case as precedent anyway. And even if they don’t, some other appellate circuit is bound to force SCOTUS’s hand eventually by issuing a more sweeping ruling on the subject. The Supremes can only hold back on this for so long before clarity from the top will be required. Second, at what point will “enough” democratic legitimacy accrue to SSM via victories at the polls before gay-rights advocates start pushing again for a constitutional ruling that will legalize it everywhere? Imagine if we end up with an even split among states, 25 apiece, with half banning gay marriage and half legalizing. A triumph of federalism! — except that, at that point, Olson and Boies or whoever’s leading the charge will go back to the Court and claim that gay marriage is now widely accepted enough as a basic right that the 25 holdout states should be compelled under the Equal Protection Clause to legalize it too. In other words, the “democratic” strategy is really just a way of building up the legal case long-term for judicially imposed SSM. In that case, maybe SSM opponents should hope that the Court takes it up now. If Kennedy does as expected and sides with the liberals, traditionalists will at least have a new milestone of judicial usurpation to point to as a rallying point for political mobilization. Good lord, the politics of this are convoluted.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

Depends on what you mean by association. In my Constitution there isn’t really a freedom of association, just a freedom to assemble and petition for redress of grievances. How do anti-discrimination laws affect your Constitutionally protected right to assemble?

alchemist19 on November 27, 2012 at 6:07 PM

I see so again you are for granting gays these rights that don’t appear anywhere in the constitution, but it is okay for everyone else to have rights taken away– I got exactly where you are coming from. Rights are disposable and dependent on whether or not YOU believe in the cause.

I see so again you are for granting gays these rights that don’t appear anywhere in the constitution, but it is okay for everyone else to have rights taken away– I got exactly where you are coming from. Rights are disposable and dependent on whether or not YOU believe in the cause.

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 6:18 PM

I’m for what’s in the Constitution and that’s it. You appear to be putting words in my mouth so it’s hard for me to keep up. What rights am I in favor of granting gay people that don’t appear in the Constitution and that I want taken away from everyone else?

What rights am I in favor of granting gay people that don’t appear in the Constitution and that I want taken away from everyone else?

alchemist19 on November 27, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Marriage does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Judge have deemed it a right. Judges also deemed freedom of association a right.

So which is it? You appear to think that everyone has a “right” to marry or that is discrimatory yet that is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Yet freedom of association, you do not consider a right because it is not in the Constitution..

My understanding of “sex ed class” is that it is not done in a biology class, but instead in “health” class, and consists mainly of putting condoms on bananas :p

Honestly, though, I would be in favor of teaching the intricacies of the woman’s fertility cycle. Fertile days vs non fertile days, what normal hormonal shifts are and how abnormal ones can impact your cycle and fertility. How hormonal contraceptives can impact your fertility later in life. How mucous, basal body temperature, stress, blockages, STDs and infections can affect your fertility.

A woman’s fertility cycle is so fragile and amazing, yet resilient. I wish high school girls would know more than “take this pill so you can give in to your boyfriend” – cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Putting condoms on bananas on condoms is not my idea of a sex education class. I think a good sex education class would be what you would be in favor of teaching. Today we do have the Internet, 24/7 news and cable television. In my day there was virtually no sex education in high school. We had only three heavily censored TV channels from which to choose. Barbara Eden of “I Dream of Jeannie” had to cover her belly button. Married couples on TV even had to sleep in separate beds.

Putting condoms on bananas on condoms is not my idea of a sex education class. I think a good sex education class would be what you would be in favor of teaching. Today we do have the Internet, 24/7 news and cable television. In my day there was virtually no sex education in high school. We had only three heavily censored TV channels from which to choose. Barbara Eden of “I Dream of Jeannie” had to cover her belly button. Married couples on TV even had to sleep in separate beds.

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 6:32 PM

And yet STDS were less prevalent and so was teenage pregnancy- go figure.

Marriage does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Judge have deemed it a right. Judges also deemed freedom of association a right.

So which is it? You appear to think that everyone has a “right” to marry or that is discrimatory yet that is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Yet freedom of association, you do not consider a right because it is not in the Constitution..

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 6:32 PM

You’re quite right that marriage doesn’t appear in the Constitution. As such I think the government should stay out of the marriage business and not grant any special favors or goodies to people who get married, be they straight or gay. Doing things that way keeps you from running afoul of the Fourteenth Amendment and thus cuts the legs out from under many of the legal challenges by gay marriage advocates.

You do realize that there are gay churches. If they marry a homosexual couple is that marriage to be recognized as a marriage? – SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Speaking of calling a tail a leg…..

A church saying, “Go, and sin no some more.”

tom on November 27, 2012 at 5:18 PM

If you call yourself a Christian you would not be very welcome in many Islamic countries. People have killed millions upon millions because their religious beliefs differed. I believe that female genital mutilation should be a crime. In the Islamic world I guess that I would be called a heretic or worse.

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 5:48 PM

What does that have to do with the pretense of “gay churches” performing “gay marriages?”

Homosexuality is not part of Christianity, and never has been. There is no foundation for the notion in Scripture, nor in the teachings of the Apostles, nor in any church history, nor in any churches. There is, on the other hand, a specific rejection of any such teaching. In fact, there is even a warning to let no man deceive you into accepting fornication, or idolatry, or abusing yourselves with mankind, or theives, as part of the Christian faith. “Gay churches” is, in short, a total fantasy that could only be claimed by the type of people who insist that Christianity means whatever they want it to mean.

It all makes about as much sense as putting a shoe on a dog’s tail and claiming that proves it’s a leg.

You’re quite right that marriage doesn’t appear in the Constitution. As such I think the government should stay out of the marriage business and not grant any special favors or goodies to people who get married, be they straight or gay. Doing things that way keeps you from running afoul of the Fourteenth Amendment and thus cuts the legs out from under many of the legal challenges by gay marriage advocates.

alchemist19 on November 27, 2012 at 6:43 PM

LOL– Then we agree, because that is my feeling also. Beside having the state involved in marriage has done nothing to help it and everything to destroy it.

And yet STDS were less prevalent and so was teenage pregnancy- go figure. – melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 6:34 PM

STDs were out there and had killed millions upon millions before the discovery of penicillin around 1940. Teenage pregnancy among certain segments of the population was not much of a problem, but it was a problem. And, married heterosexual couples for some reason did not get nearly as many divorces as they do today. Also women weren’t welcome in Medical Schools, Law Schools or other graduate schools ……………… only certain jobs were open to them. Things have radically changed since I graduated college in 1973.

My understanding of “sex ed class” is that it is not done in a biology class, but instead in “health” class, and consists mainly of putting condoms on bananas :p

Honestly, though, I would be in favor of teaching the intricacies of the woman’s fertility cycle. Fertile days vs non fertile days, what normal hormonal shifts are and how abnormal ones can impact your cycle and fertility. How hormonal contraceptives can impact your fertility later in life. How mucous, basal body temperature, stress, blockages, STDs and infections can affect your fertility.

A woman’s fertility cycle is so fragile and amazing, yet resilient. I wish high school girls would know more than “take this pill so you can give in to your boyfriend” – cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Putting condoms on bananas on condoms is not my idea of a sex education class. I think a good sex education class would be what you would be in favor of teaching. Today we do have the Internet, 24/7 news and cable television. In my day there was virtually no sex education in high school. We had only three heavily censored TV channels from which to choose. Barbara Eden of “I Dream of Jeannie” had to cover her belly button. Married couples on TV even had to sleep in separate beds.

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 6:32 PM

A good sex ed class would teach that sex is for responsible, and mature adults in a monogamous and committed relationship, so that any resulting babies would have a good home to grow up in.

The sexual revolution has lead to more of every single one of those negatives. Strong families lead to a healthier, happier, and more prosperous society.

Instead, we get the gay fascists demanding that marriage be redefined, you bigots.

Same-sex marriage is not an irrelevant issue in this country, though it would be great if it were. It comes down to the very core of the problem we are facing right now. The gay fascists are just like the green fascists and the feminist fascists and the marxist fascists. They’re all tin-plated tyrants who want to use the government to control the rest of us.

“Gay churches” is, in short, a total fantasy that could only be claimed by the type of people who insist that Christianity means whatever they want it to mean.

It all makes about as much sense as putting a shoe on a dog’s tail and claiming that proves it’s a leg. – tom on November 27, 2012 at 6:56 PM

And, at one time all Christian churches believed in human slavery. And, Protestant churches are not really Christian …………. since they are not Catholic.

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 7:12 PM

At this point, you’re just admitting that you completely failed to prove your point. No, Christian churches never “believed” in slavery. There is no teaching of slavery in Christianity. There was slavery in the various cultures, and the Christian churches had to deal with it. And yet, strangely, slavery died out in Christian nations because it was so hard to reconcile with Christian teaching about loving your neighbor. The only place where slavery flourished was Islamic culture.

There is exactly one exception that I know of to this broad rule, and that was in the American South, which largely sidestepped Christian teaching on the treatment of your neigbors by arguing that the blacks were so primitive taht they were really doing them a favor. A notable reminder that people will rationalize what they know to be wrong, like same-sex marriage.

Even in that case, the slave trade was begun by Arabs seizing slaves in Africa and selling them. I imagine there were very few people in the American South who thought about how their practice of slavery had Muslim origins.

Same-sex marriage is not an irrelevant issue in this country, though it would be great if it were. It comes down to the very core of the problem we are facing right now. The gay fascists are just like the green fascists and the feminist fascists and the marxist fascists. They’re all tin-plated tyrants who want to use the government to control the rest of us. – tom on November 27, 2012 at 7:14 PM

So same-sex marriages monogamous marriages would be harmful to our society. May I ask why? Heterosexuals have done a darn good job of destroying traditional marriage all by themselves.

At this point, you’re just admitting that you completely failed to prove your point. No, Christian churches never “believed” in slavery. There is no teaching of slavery in Christianity. There was slavery in the various cultures, and the Christian churches had to deal with it. And yet, strangely, slavery died out in Christian nations because it was so hard to reconcile with Christian teaching about loving your neighbor. The only place where slavery flourished was Islamic culture.

There is exactly one exception that I know of to this broad rule, and that was in the American South, which largely sidestepped Christian teaching on the treatment of your neigbors by arguing that the blacks were so primitive taht they were really doing them a favor. A notable reminder that people will rationalize what they know to be wrong, like same-sex marriage.

Even in that case, the slave trade was begun by Arabs seizing slaves in Africa and selling them. I imagine there were very few people in the American South who thought about how their practice of slavery had Muslim origins. – tom on November 27, 2012 at 7:23 PM

You are not very well educated:

During the first century New Testament times, slaves converted to Christianity, were regarded as freedman brothers in Christ and included in Christ’s kingdom inheritance.[4] These slaves were told to serve their masters as if they were serving Christ, with morals, faithfulness, and respectfullness (Ephesians 6:5-8 KJV).[4] Slaves were told by Paul the Apostle in his first Corinthian Epistle that they were to seek or purchase their freedom whenever possible. (I Corinthians 7:21 KJV) [4]
Avery Robert Dulles holds the opinion that “Jesus, though he repeatedly denounced sin as a kind of moral slavery, said not a word against slavery as a social institution”, and believes that the writers of the New Testament did not oppose slavery either.[39]
In several Pauline epistles, and the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished to obey their masters, as to the Lord, and not to men.[40][41][42][43][44] Masters were also told to serve their slaves in the same way.[45] Slaves were told that their suffering was similar to the suffering that Christ endured.[46] Paul also puts forward that (NIV version) “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”,[47] suggesting that Christians take off these titles because they are now clothed in Christ.[48] He also states that, before Jesus, the Epistle to Philemon has become an important text in regard to slavery, being used by pro-slavery advocates as well as by abolitionists.[49] In the epistle, Paul writes that he is returning Onesimus, a fugitive slave, back to his master Philemon. Paul also entreats Philemon to regard Onesimus as a beloved brother in Christ.[50] Cardinal Dulles points out that, “while discreetly suggesting that he manumit Onesimus, [Paul] does not say that Philemon is morally obliged to free Onesimus and any other slaves he may have had.”[39] He does, however, encourage Philemon to welcome Onesimus “not as a slave, but as more than a slave, as a beloved brother”.[51] According to tradition, Philemon did free Onesimus, and both were eventually recognized as saints by the Church. T. David Curp asserts that, “Given that the Church received Philemon as inspired Scripture, Paul’s ambiguity effectively blocked the early Fathers of the Church from denouncing slavery outright.” Curp points out that St. John Chrysostom, in his sermon on Philemon, considers Paul’s sending Onesimus back to his master a sign that slavery should not be abolished.[5]

Same-sex marriage is not an irrelevant issue in this country, though it would be great if it were. It comes down to the very core of the problem we are facing right now. The gay fascists are just like the green fascists and the feminist fascists and the marxist fascists. They’re all tin-plated tyrants who want to use the government to control the rest of us. – tom on November 27, 2012 at 7:14 PM

So same-sex marriages monogamous marriages would be harmful to our society. May I ask why? Heterosexuals have done a darn good job of destroying traditional marriage all by themselves.

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Funny, I’ve known lots of traditional marriages that aren’t destroyed.

What usually destroys a marriage is selfishness on the part of one or the other or both, that leads to saying, “So what if it’s wrong. I deserve it, and I want it.”

Th same basic mentality of the gay fascists demanding everybody restructure the foundational unit of society so that homosexuals can say, “Gosh darn it my lifestyle really IS just as good.”

Which is why if the gay fascists ever win mandated same-sex marriage recognition, they will simply use it to demand more. The goal they have of full normalization is not achievable because homosexuality is by its nature abnormal. They can never get enough vindication from society to be able to rest on their achievement. They will inevitably move to find some other cause to demand acceptance from society, and that acceptance will come from the only people who won’t give them their acceptance: Christians.

It’s interesting that this discussion all started with the claim of “gay churches performing gay marriages,” because at heart this is a war to affirm homosexuality against Christian doctrine and morality. As long as a preacher can stand in a pulpit and declare that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God, the war will continue.

And before you start in again, I will point out that this is a war instigated and fought by homosexual activists. The reason there will never be a peace is that the homosexual activists demanding this will accept nothing less than surrender. That’s why the big push to get the government involved, because the government has a monopoly on force.

At this point, you’re just admitting that you completely failed to prove your point. No, Christian churches never “believed” in slavery. There is no teaching of slavery in Christianity. There was slavery in the various cultures, and the Christian churches had to deal with it. And yet, strangely, slavery died out in Christian nations because it was so hard to reconcile with Christian teaching about loving your neighbor. The only place where slavery flourished was Islamic culture.

There is exactly one exception that I know of to this broad rule, and that was in the American South, which largely sidestepped Christian teaching on the treatment of your neigbors by arguing that the blacks were so primitive taht they were really doing them a favor. A notable reminder that people will rationalize what they know to be wrong, like same-sex marriage.

Even in that case, the slave trade was begun by Arabs seizing slaves in Africa and selling them. I imagine there were very few people in the American South who thought about how their practice of slavery had Muslim origins. – tom on November 27, 2012 at 7:23 PM

You are not very well educated:

During the first century New Testament times, slaves converted to Christianity, were regarded as freedman brothers in Christ and included in Christ’s kingdom inheritance.[4] These slaves were told to serve their masters as if they were serving Christ, with morals, faithfulness, and respectfullness (Ephesians 6:5-8 KJV).[4] Slaves were told by Paul the Apostle in his first Corinthian Epistle that they were to seek or purchase their freedom whenever possible. (I Corinthians 7:21 KJV) [4]
Avery Robert Dulles holds the opinion that “Jesus, though he repeatedly denounced sin as a kind of moral slavery, said not a word against slavery as a social institution”, and believes that the writers of the New Testament did not oppose slavery either.[39]
In several Pauline epistles, and the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished to obey their masters, as to the Lord, and not to men.[40][41][42][43][44] Masters were also told to serve their slaves in the same way.[45] Slaves were told that their suffering was similar to the suffering that Christ endured.[46] Paul also puts forward that (NIV version) “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”,[47] suggesting that Christians take off these titles because they are now clothed in Christ.[48] He also states that, before Jesus, the Epistle to Philemon has become an important text in regard to slavery, being used by pro-slavery advocates as well as by abolitionists.[49] In the epistle, Paul writes that he is returning Onesimus, a fugitive slave, back to his master Philemon. Paul also entreats Philemon to regard Onesimus as a beloved brother in Christ.[50] Cardinal Dulles points out that, “while discreetly suggesting that he manumit Onesimus, [Paul] does not say that Philemon is morally obliged to free Onesimus and any other slaves he may have had.”[39] He does, however, encourage Philemon to welcome Onesimus “not as a slave, but as more than a slave, as a beloved brother”.[51] According to tradition, Philemon did free Onesimus, and both were eventually recognized as saints by the Church. T. David Curp asserts that, “Given that the Church received Philemon as inspired Scripture, Paul’s ambiguity effectively blocked the early Fathers of the Church from denouncing slavery outright.” Curp points out that St. John Chrysostom, in his sermon on Philemon, considers Paul’s sending Onesimus back to his master a sign that slavery should not be abolished.[5]

The totality of what you posted doesn’t even undermine what I said for a moment. Jesus did not launch a mission to reform government or institute social change. Slavery existed in the Roman empire, as it did in the Greek and the Persian. The Spartans entire economy was based on slave labor.

So of course the Christian faith spoke to slaves and told them to obey their masters, and to seek their reward from God. It also spoke to slave owners and told them to treat their slaves with kindness, because God was watching them, and would hold them accountable for how they treated their slaves.

As Paul wrote, “Art thou called being a servant? Care not for it; but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant.”

The only reason you even bring up slavery is to divert attention from the clear evidence that the Christian faith does not accept homosexuality, or consider it as anything less than sinful. So a veneer of a “gay church performing a marriage” is meaningless.

And yet I see you go to a lot of trouble to attempt to define what the Christian teaching on slavery is, while muddling the considerably more clear Christian teaching on homosoexuality.

It’s interesting that this discussion all started with the claim of “gay churches performing gay marriages,” because at heart this is a war to affirm homosexuality against Christian doctrine and morality. As long as a preacher can stand in a pulpit and declare that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God, the war will continue.

And before you start in again, I will point out that this is a war instigated and fought by homosexual activists. The reason there will never be a peace is that the homosexual activists demanding this will accept nothing less than surrender. That’s why the big push to get the government involved, because the government has a monopoly on force. – tom on November 27, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Yep, religious fanatics will always exist. And, there will always be conflicting views.

In my sex ed classes we learned that STDs almost always are a result of unprotected sex and the only 100% effective guard against them is abstinence. Is that so bad?

alchemist19 on November 27, 2012 at 7:39 PM

No, that information is not bad in itself, but sex education has allowed parents to abdicate their responsibility to the school which as I have stated has made STD and pregnancy increase not decrease. My son has taken no sex ed classes and knows everything that you do, but I was able to instruct him even further in the moral and psychological questions that surround sexuality. How many classes teach young girls that they really can’t have casual sex because biologically their brain release the same chemical that it release when they have a baby bonding them to the man. This is why you have women who suddenly freak out and love a guy even though it was just friends with bennies. Our brains are programmed to do that.

I am more angry at parents for abdicating this responsbility and I think sex education classes allow them to do it. Kinda like how liberals think they shouldn’t give to charity because the government and taxes take care of the poor people.

Melle /s means I am being sarcastic.

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 7:43 PM

LOL– And I was just joshing you as well. :) I know you think I want to revert to the olden days, but I think we have made loads of progress in some things and not so much in others. I truly don’t think our sexual mores in this time has done us any good(and I am not talking about gay people). I am talking about promiscuous people in general.

I am more angry at parents for abdicating this responsbility and I think sex education classes allow them to do it. Kinda like how liberals think they shouldn’t give to charity because the government and taxes take care of the poor people.

melle1228 on November 27, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Hear hear on the real issue being abdication of responsibility by lousy parents and kudos to you for doing it the right way. What I struggle with is the idea that if you remove sex ed from the schools that it will suddenly make the less responsible parents out there snap to start taking things more seriously.

I can’t speak to what girls are told in sex ed classes because back when I went through it the separated classes by gender but I do remember hearing from girls who were products of public education about the specific hormonal chance a woman experiences when she has sex. Whether that was a product of her education or her parenting though I can’t say.

Conflicting views are fine. Trying to use government force to make others accept your views is not.

tom on November 27, 2012 at 7:57 PM

How about using the power of the government to enforce the Constitution?

alchemist19 on November 27, 2012 at 8:14 PM

Non sequitur. The Constitution says even less about marriage than it does about abortion. Though I’m sure there are some legal geniuses just aching to ‘help’ that little problem along, that doesn’t mean you get to pretend you’re standing up for the Constitution any time you have a pet issue you want some action on.

Conflicting views are fine. Trying to use government force to make others accept your views is not.

tom on November 27, 2012 at 7:57 PM

How about using the power of the government to enforce the Constitution?

alchemist19 on November 27, 2012 at 8:14 PM

Non sequitur. The Constitution says even less about marriage than it does about abortion. Though I’m sure there are some legal geniuses just aching to ‘help’ that little problem along, that doesn’t mean you get to pretend you’re standing up for the Constitution any time you have a pet issue you want some action on.

tom on November 27, 2012 at 8:19 PM

I should really apologize for treating the question seriously in the first place. There is no Constitutional issue here. The reason some pretend this a matter of the Constitution, is so they can overrule everyone else at one sweep and declare that the Constitution has always meant that two men can be just as married as a husband and wife. The mere fact that no one ever saw this in the Constitution before now is beside the point. The fact that marriage never included two men before, nor would it have even occurred to the people who actually wrote, debated, voted on, and affirmed the Constitution is irrelevant, nor would they have even hypothetically considered the possibility that someone might make such an odd and absurd claim.

Simmer down there, Trigger. I was just asking if it’s okay to under the power of government to enforce the Constitution. Got to lay the ground rules before we can get to specifics.

alchemist19 on November 27, 2012 at 8:22 PM

Very shortly then, the issue is not driven by the Constitution at all, which actually lays out specific enumerated powers and scopes by design. The folly of then deliberately expanding those enumerated powers and scopes to further pet issues should be obvious.

Very shortly then, the issue is not driven by the Constitution at all, which actually lays out specific enumerated powers and scopes by design. The folly of then deliberately expanding those enumerated powers and scopes to further pet issues should be obvious.

tom on November 27, 2012 at 8:35 PM

I haven’t said anything about the issue to you and you seem very adverse to giving a simple “Yes,” or “No,” to a relatively straightforward question about whether the government has the powers to enforce the Constitution.

Very shortly then, the issue is not driven by the Constitution at all, which actually lays out specific enumerated powers and scopes by design. The folly of then deliberately expanding those enumerated powers and scopes to further pet issues should be obvious.

tom on November 27, 2012 at 8:35 PM

I haven’t said anything about the issue to you and you seem very adverse to giving a simple “Yes,” or “No,” to a relatively straightforward question about whether the government has the powers to enforce the Constitution.

alchemist19 on November 27, 2012 at 8:39 PM

I can just as easily turn that around and ask why you are asking a hypothetical question about something that is not and never has been at issue. The Constitution does not address same-sex marriage, so asking whether the government has the power to enforce what the Constitution does address is beside the point.

But in the broader sense, the very definition of what the government has the power to enforce is the Constitution itself. And the fact that the Constitution limits itself to enumerated powers is the very reason that activists attempt to make the Constitution say what it clearly doesn’t.

I can just as easily turn that around and ask why you are asking a hypothetical question about something that is not and never has been at issue. The Constitution does not address same-sex marriage, so asking whether the government has the power to enforce what the Constitution does address is beside the point.

But in the broader sense, the very definition of what the government has the power to enforce is the Constitution itself. And the fact that the Constitution limits itself to enumerated powers is the very reason that activists attempt to make the Constitution say what it clearly doesn’t.

tom on November 27, 2012 at 9:01 PM

The thing you’re forgetting (willfully ignoring because it undercuts your argument?) is that the Fourteenth Amendment expanded the power and reach of the government to do things like make sure laws treated people equally.

If you believe the wording of the Fourteenth Amendment is too loose and it’s being used to in ways it was not intended then fine, make that argument and push for a new amendment to the Constitution that will narrow the language. Until that time though we’re left with what it actually says, plus perhaps a warning of the importance of specific wording when it comes to future amendments. For now though we’re playing the game with the existing rulebook as it’s written.

The thing you’re forgetting (willfully ignoring because it undercuts your argument?) is that the Fourteenth Amendment expanded the power and reach of the government to do things like make sure laws treated people equally.

If you believe the wording of the Fourteenth Amendment is too loose and it’s being used to in ways it was not intended then fine, make that argument and push for a new amendment to the Constitution that will narrow the language. Until that time though we’re left with what it actually says, plus perhaps a warning of the importance of specific wording when it comes to future amendments. For now though we’re playing the game with the existing rulebook as it’s written.

alchemist19 on November 27, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Does the 14th Amendment trump the 10th Amendment? Does it trump the 1st Amendment?

Does the 14th Amendment trump the 10th Amendment? Does it trump the 1st Amendment?

cptacek on November 28, 2012 at 12:57 AM

Sure. In the event of a conflict the 14th trumps anything that comes before it and is trumped by anything that comes after it. Is it your position that a later amendment doesn’t change an earlier one? The 21st certainly trumps the 18th. There are sections of the 14th that limit voting to people age 21 and older that are trumped by the 26th. Is this news to you?

Sure. In the event of a conflict the 14th trumps anything that comes before it and is trumped by anything that comes after it. Is it your position that a later amendment doesn’t change an earlier one? The 21st certainly trumps the 18th. There are sections of the 14th that limit voting to people age 21 and older that are trumped by the 26th. Is this news to you?

alchemist19 on November 28, 2012 at 3:20 AM

I think you are stretching the 14th Amendment a little (a lot) too far.

In order to get my concealed carry license, I had to go to a class, take a test, get a background check and pay a fee. I then got the license issued by the state of Kansas.

If I go to Illinois, does the 14th Amendment require Illinois to recognize my Kansas concealed carry license? If not, then why does Kansas, which has a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage to be between a man and a woman, have to recognize a marriage license issued by Massachusetts to a man and a man?

I think you are stretching the 14th Amendment a little (a lot) too far.

In order to get my concealed carry license, I had to go to a class, take a test, get a background check and pay a fee. I then got the license issued by the state of Kansas.

If I go to Illinois, does the 14th Amendment require Illinois to recognize my Kansas concealed carry license? If not, then why does Kansas, which has a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage to be between a man and a woman, have to recognize a marriage license issued by Massachusetts to a man and a man?

cptacek on November 28, 2012 at 2:58 PM

I’m not stretching the 14th Amendment at all, I’m just reading the text.

The argument I usually hear with respect to concealed carry permits (and I have one of those as well and I travel a lot so I’m well aware of the issues you’re talking about) relates to the Full Faith and Credit Clause and not the 14th Amendment. If you’ve got a good argument for why they should be covered under the 14th then I’m eager to hear it. I don’t want to get totally sidetracked here but the status of concealed carry licenses not being valid in other states isn’t unique. Find yourself a Kansas lawyer with a Kansas law license and ask him if that entitles him to practice law anywhere he wants.

And yet I see you go to a lot of trouble to attempt to define what the Christian teaching on slavery is, while muddling the considerably more clear Christian teaching on homosoexuality.
tom on November 27, 2012 at 7:49 PM

Excellent points all. The Christian faith is not revolutionary in the sense that it overturns societies and institutions overnight. It’s influence is like leaven, not C-4.

A pretty good indication of the abhorrence with which sodomy is held in Scripture is that slavery is merely regulated, but sodomy gets the ban hammer.

I’m not an attorney so I could be totally off on this but from what I understand from trying to educate myself on the issue it’s a matter of comity, where one jurisdiction will recognize legal documents from another. From what I know the line is drawn with things you need to pass a qualifying exam for (admission to the bar, carrying a concealed firearm, etc.) with the one notable exception of driver’s licenses where the Privileges and Immunities and the Full Faith and Credit Clause do appear to apply.

Besides, let’s say Kansas makes you pass an exam consisting of “Do you want to marry this person?” in order to get a marriage license. Does that make marriage now the same as bar admission and concealed carry?

This also goes to the freedom of churches to rent out their facilities to whom they wish. Once gay marriage becomes the law of the land, count on lawsuits against anyone, be it churches, photographers, wedding planners, florists, etc who decide they don’t want to deal with gay marriage.

STL_Vet on November 27, 2012 at 2:07 PM

I don’t have the link handy, but it’s already happening – last I heard, the photographer was potentially going to go broke fighting the lawsuit…

Besides, let’s say Kansas makes you pass an exam consisting of “Do you want to marry this person?” in order to get a marriage license. Does that make marriage now the same as bar admission and concealed carry?

cptacek on November 28, 2012 at 5:04 PM

If I remember my Corfield v. Coryell the courts have found the Comity Clause to the rights of all free people (life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, etc.) and travel was specifically mentioned so that’s where the driver’s license thing comes from. You’d have an easier time arguing that marriage is a right of free people than carrying a concealed weapon on being admitted to a state bar is.